Islam (الإِسْلاَمُ) is a stated ambition to Islamise all others into the influence of [the] Shari’ah (شريعة).

Islam (الإِسْلاَمُ) is a stated ambition to Islamise all others into the influence of [the] Shari’ah (شريعة).

The term that is presented in this short article is defined thus: KĀFIR (كافر), pl. kāfirūn. Lit. “The coverer.” One who hides or covers up the truth.

Introduction

Adam Deen of the Quilliam Foundation asked Dr Bill Warner, PhD of the Center for the study of Political Islam what the definition of the word Kafir was, according to classical scholars. The significance of this question lies in the fact that Bill’s work is entirely grounded in how the Kafir is treated in Qur’an by Muhammed or as defined by Muhammed’s life. That focus is where Bill derived his use of the term ‘Political Islam’. In short Bill would argue that no one cares about religious Islam, but the Kafir needs to care about how Islam sees him and would deal with him, as evidenced from Qur’an, prophetic Hadith and the Sira. Bill’s work is called The Trilogy Project.

To answer Adam Deen’s question, Bill said, that “to go back to the root k-f-r. and means to hide or conceal – to cover”. Deen agrees with that. Then Adam Deen asks how the classical scholars understand that term. Bill then explained that although he is not a classical scholar his understanding of Kafir is one who believes that Muhammed was not the prophet of Allah.

What Deen then tells Dr Warner is that non belief doesn’t constitute Kufar – then he says – what constitutes Kufar or to be a Kafir is someone who believes that Islam is true and conceals it and is hostile towards it. What I want to do in this short article is demonstrate just how misleading that claim by Deen really is. To do this I will cite several independent theologians, showing various ways in which the term Kafir is used in Qur’an and in Classical Arabic and then insert my own comments which I will sign as (Robert Chisholm).

Once I have given a broad theological definition by classical scholars I will explore the term that is lexically defined as infidel and how that word is also used as Kafir. There are only two instances of the word I am using in Qur’an, although the idea that stems from this word is expressed hundreds of times throughout Qur’an. It is important to realise that when we are claiming that what we are saying amounts to doctrine, or else reflects doctrine, where that doctrine must not come from many morphological and textual usages, we need to be able to show clearly where doctrine comes from. So كاف (Infidel – Lexical) or else كَافِرٍ (Infidel – Manuscript) are the two words I am using. The one كاف (Infidel) is lexical and the manuscript, which means the word used in Quran, is كَافِرٍ (Infidel – Manuscript).

Reference Section

Lexical, Encyclopaedic and Narrative.

This lexical and theological exposition of the term كافر demonstrates the development of how the term itself is linguistically, and canonically used in Islamic Jurisprudence – by which I mean how the term كافر forms the core meaning of an idea that gives rise to other Arabic words in Qur’an that carry a doctrinal, or else theological imperative as used in Islamic Jurisprudence. (Robert Chisholm)

INFIDEL. There are several words used for those in a state of infidelity: 1, kāfir (كافر), one who hides or denies the truth; 2, mushrik (مشرك), one who gives companions to God; 3, mulḥid (ملحد), one who has deviated from the truth; 4, zandīq (زنديق), an infidel or a zend-worshipper; 5, munāfiq (منافق), one who secretly disbelieves in the mission of Muḥammad; 6, murtadd (مرتد), an apostate from Islām; 7, dahrī (دهرى), an atheist; 8, was̤anīy (وثنى), a pagan or idolater.

This is a general encyclopaedic presentation, beginning with the term كاف (Infidel or Kafir). It includes several verses from Qur’an and I will be coming back to that usage specifically, showing what the term Infidel or Kafir means, and how Adam Deen of the Quilliam Foundation mislead all others, and by that means abused, insulted and patronised Dr Bill Warner, PhD – even though Dr Warner,’s definition and usage of the term Kafir is a fuller and richer expression of Qur’anic theological meanings, whilst stating clearly that he was not interested in Islam in its religious meaning.

KĀFIR (كافر), pl. kāfirūn. Lit. “The coverer.” One who hides or covers up the truth.

“The word is generally used by Muḥammadans to define one who is an unbeliever in the ministry of Muḥammad and his Qur’ān, and in this sense it seems to have been used by Muḥammad himself. Sūrah ii. 37: “Those who misbelieve (wa’llaẕīna kafarū), and call our signs lies, they are fellows of the Fire, they shall dwell within for ever.”

“It is also used for those who believe in the Divinity of the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Trinity. Sūrah v. 76: “They indeed are infidels (la-qad kafara ’llaẕīna), who say God is al-Masīḥu ibn Maryam.… Verily him who associates anything with God, hath God forbidden Paradise, and his resort is the Fire.”

Sūrah v. 77: “They are infidels who say Verily God is the third of three.”

“On this passage the Kamālān say it refers to the Nestorians and to the Malakā’īyah, who believe that God is one of three, the other two being the mother and son.”

“According to the Raddu ’l-Muḥtār (vol. iii. p. 442), there are five classes of kāfirs or infidels: (1) Those who do not believe in the Great First Cause; (2) Those who do not believe in the Unity of God, as the S̤anawīyah who believe in the two eternal principles of light and darkness; (3) Those who believe in the Unity of God, but do not believe in a revelation; (4) Those who are idolaters; (5) Those who believe in God and in a revelation, but do not believe in the general mission of Muḥammad to the whole of mankind, as the Christians, a sect of the Jews (sic).”

“Saiyid Sharīf Jurjāni says: “Mankind are divided into two parties, namely, those who acknowledge the mission of Muḥammad, or those who do not believe in it. Those who do not believe in his mission are either those who reject it and yet believe in the inspiration and divine mission of other prophets, as the Jews or Christians, and also the Majūsī (Fire Worshippers); or those who do not believe in any revelation of God’s will. Those who do not believe in any revelation from God, are either those who acknowledge the existence of God, as the Brāhmā (Buddhists?), or those who deny the existence of a Supreme Ruler, as the Dahrī, or Atheists.”

“Those who do not acknowledge Muḥammad as an inspired prophet are either those who do it wilfully and from mere enmity, or those who do not acknowledge it from reflection and due study of the subject. For the former is eternal punishment, and for the latter that punishment which is not eternal. There are also those who, whilst they are Muslims, are not orthodox in their belief; these are heretics, but they are not kāfirs. Those who are orthodox are an-Nājī or the salvationists.”

Sharḥu ’l-Muwāqif, p. 597.

Dictionary of Islam being a cyclopædia of the doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs, together with the technical and theological terms, of the muhammadan religion by Thomas Patrick Hughes, B.D., M.R.A.S.

Lexical

This is a straight forward Lexical presentation in which the term كافر is implicitly used in its Islamic Theological and Jurisprudent meaning giving rise to Doctrine that removes opinion and speculation and formally identifies the term as arising from, “Do not thou attribute or impute disbelief or infidelity to any one of the people of thy kibleh” (Robert Chisholm)

“He called him a كَافِر [i. e. a disbeliever, an unbeliever, or an infidel]: (S, Mgh, K:) he attributed, or imputed to him, charged him with, or accused him of, disbelief, or infidelity: (S, A, Msb:) or he said to him كَفَرْتَ [Thou hast become an unbeliever, or infidel, or Thou hast blasphemed: in this last sense, “he said to him Thou hast blasphemed,” كفّرهُ, to which alone it is assigned in the Msb, is very commonly used in the present day.”

“(Msb.) Hence the saying, لَا تُكْفِرْ أَحَدًا مِنْ أَهْلِ قِبْلَتِكَ Do not thou attribute or impute disbelief or infidelity to any one of the people of thy kibleh; (S, TA;) i. e., do not thou call any such a disbeliever, &c.; or do not thou make him such by thine assertion and thy saying. (TA.) لَا تُكَفِّرُوا أَهْلَ قِبْلَتِكُمْ is not authorized by the relation, though it be allowable as a dial. form. (Mgh.) ― -b2- [Also] أَكْفَرْتُهُ, inf. n. اـِكْفَارٌ, I made him a disbeliever, an unbeliever, or an infidel; I compelled him to become a disbeliever, &c. (Msb.) And أَكْفَرَ فُلَانٌ صَاحِبَهُ Such a one compelled his companion by evil treatment to become disobedient after he had been obedient. (Mgh.) And أَكْفَرَ الرَّجُلُ مُطِيعَهُ The man compelled him who had obeyed him to disobey him: (T, TA:) or he made him to be under a necessity to disobey him. (TA.) -A2- اكفر He (a man, TA) kept, or confined himself, to the كَفْر, (K,) i. e. قَرْيَة [town or village]; (TA;) as also ↓ اكتفر. (IAar, K.)”

An Arabic-English Lexicon. Edward William Lane

Qur’an (Robert Chisholm)

Now we must give Qur’an its voice and show just how the term كافر (Infidel or Kafir) is defined in an inevitable doctrinal or Jurisprudent meaning, and how that fact of Qur’an determines every implication of its meaning so gravely, that it is impossible to deny that what Dr Warner, PhD said to Adam Deen of the Quilliam Foundation, was true and essential to understand.

The Lexical word for Infidel or Kafir is كاف whereas the manuscript word in Qur’an is كَافِرٍ. Lexical words are simply dictionary words, either theological or else not, as the case may be. Whereas, manuscript words are canonical, and what gives rise to canonical doctrine is not the word in isolation, but rather the context in which it is used. So we see the first usage of كَافِرٍ in Qur’an in Surah 2:41

Surah Two – The Cow – and it is a Medinan recitation by Muhammed that gives كاف (Infidel – Lexical) or else كَافِرٍ (Infidel – Manuscript) an undoubted clear meaning.

And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone. Abdullah Yusuf Ali

We can see that taken in isolation Surah 2:41 would not of itself either produce a doctrine or a clear meaning other than a simple sense that the hearer is being warned not to reject God or His signs. In this instance the ‘signs’ are really about Scripture, and is a clear reference to Torah, because the verse is contextually speaking about the Jews. In a more indirect meaning this verse is set in context of a warning that Qur’an, and the one who is used to deliver this ‘sign’ of God, is Muhammed. The sign therefore is also Qur’an, and the implicit warning is that rejection of Muhammed, means rejection of Qur’an. Yet even that of itself does not give us a precise way of defining theological meanings, other than as a direction. If we see the context, however, from Qur’an we begin to see a clear meaning.

Therefore:

37. Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. 38. We said: “Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from Me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. 39. “But those who reject Faith and disbelieve Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.” 40. O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. 41. And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone. 42. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).

From verse 37 – 38 we read about the time when Adam is cast down to earth from Paradise with a warning that God would send him guidance – then in verse 39 the warning that to reject these signs of the mercy of God would lead to hell fire. Verse 40 gives a clear context of those who were at risk of rejecting Muhammed, even Israel, and then verse 41 establishes the clearest present tense warning about rejection of Qur’an (Muhammed). Lastly, verse 42 defines what doctrine is therein established for the one who does reject Qur’an, who is of Israel (contextually). It is this form of words verse 42 – And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is) – that makes the term كاف (Infidel – Lexical)) or else كَافِرٍ (Infidel – Manuscript) mean that anyone who has received the revelation of God, and rejects it because they are rebellious, intending to cover up the truth of Islam, is kafir. It is Israel that is being warned and Islam that is being taught.

If I were a deceiver and intended to cover up Islam according to Qur’an and according to 1400 years of history of Lesser Jihad then I would make this point. I would say these words in Surah 2:37-42 are spoken to Muslim, and therefore their meaning is that when the Muslim rejects Qur’an and Muhammed, the prophet of Allah, as the confession of faith says, then the Muslim in such a condition becomes Kafir. However whilst that claim may well be implicit in this passage from Qur’an we need to realise that Surah Two is one of the first Surah’s recited in Medina, and Medina at this time is made up of three Jewish tribes, as well Arabs, some Muslim and some polytheist, and therefore, the Jews represent half of the population. And whilst the Jews had a political agreement with Muhammed in Medina, they went on to reject his prophetic claim that he was the last of the Judaeo prophetic men given as a vessel to expound prophetic meanings. Regardless as to what Muhammed could have said to these men, their is no possibility whatever, that Muhammed could qualify as a prophet under Torah, or the other canonical books of Israel, and as such his rejection was inevitable – just as he was rejected in Mecca for the previous thirteen years.

The Arabic word for the apostate is from اِرْتِدادٌ meaning “ a returning; ” (S;) [An apostate: and particularly] one who returns from El-Islám to disbelief. (Edward William Lane). The term Infidel or Kafir cannot be properly applied to Muslim, because their position, once apostate, is far worse than all others. Kafir simply does not carry enough weight of consequence to the one who renounces Islam.

We may recall: INFIDEL. There are several words used for those in a state of infidelity: 1, kāfir (كافر), one who hides or denies the truth; 2, mushrik (مشرك), one who gives companions to God; 3, mulḥid (ملحد), one who has deviated from the truth; 4, zandīq (زنديق), an infidel or a zend-worshipper; 5, munāfiq (منافق), one who secretly disbelieves in the mission of Muḥammad; 6, murtadd (مرتد), an apostate from Islām; 7, dahrī (دهرى), an atheist; 8, was̤anīy (وثنى), a pagan or idolater.

It is He Who has created you; and of you are some that are Unbelievers, and some that are Believers: and Allah sees well all that ye do. Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Put simply, when Dr Warner, PhD tells Adam Deen of the Quilliam Foundation that the term Kafir applies to unbelievers, and Deen says, that non belief doesn’t constitute Kufar – then he says – what constitutes Kufar or to be a Kafir is someone who believes that Islam is true and conceals it and is hostile towards Islam, one has to ask what possible motive anyone in Islam could have to take that position. The same meaning, as given previously, namely that the Lexical word for Infidel or Kafir is كاف, whereas the manuscript word in Qur’an is كَافِرٍ – also applies to this verse. Surah 64:2.

Narrative Reference

This narrative reference gives a clear and necessary outline of the underlying position that Islam takes in relationship to the Jewish Torah and Old Testament, as well New Testament Canon. (Robert Chisholm)

“We must now inquire what is the attitude of Muḥammadanism towards Christianity and the Canonical Scriptures. It has been asserted not long since that Muslims reverence the Bible, and that their religion may be regarded as a preparation for Christianity in Eastern lands. In this statement there is just enough verisimilitude to make it readily accepted by those who are not well acquainted with the real facts of the case. It is true that Muḥammad never spoke or wrote a single word against the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. On the contrary, he not only acknowledged them to have been given by Divine inspiration, but also asserted that the Qur’ân itself was given to bear testimony to their truth, and to guard them from injury. There are one or two verses in the Qur’ân in which the Jews are accused of perverting the meaning of their Holy Books, but Sir W. Muir has shown that these passages do not justify the statement current among Muslims that the text of the Scriptures has been tampered with. Although himself ignorant of Scripture, Muḥammad seems to have been so firmly convinced of its authority that he boldly appealed to it for testimony regarding his Divine mission. Yet on the other hand his teachings are in some instances diametrically opposed to Scriptural doctrine not only in minor details but also in the most important particulars. The Qur’ân denies the Trinity, the Divine Sonship of our Redeemer, His atoning Death, and his Mediatorial Office. Muḥammad taught his followers that Christ had prophesied of his coming when promising to the Apostles the gift of the Paraclete.

The origin of this mistake was the confusion which existed in the Arab mind between Παράκλητος and περικλυτός, which latter word might perhaps be rendered by Aḥmad, the same name as Muḥammad. We must not, however, permit ourselves to imagine that the “Prophet” claimed to be the Holy Ghost—whom Muḥammadans identify with the Angel Gabriel,—or in fact anything more than a man chosen and sent on a Divine commission. Yet he did claim for himself superiority to all other Prophets, and it is fully in accordance with the spirit of his teaching that Muslims believe, as they do, that the Qur’ân has practically annulled all the Holy Books that preceded it. There is therefore, they hold, no necessity for studying the Holy Scriptures of either Jews or Christians. It is very difficult indeed to induce most Muḥammadans to study them at all, and any copies which fall into the hands of Muslim authorities are ruthlessly committed to the flames. Muḥammadanism claims to stand, in other respects, in the same position with regard to Christianity that the latter holds in reference to Judaism. This will show how absurd it is to regard Islâm as preparing the way for Christianity. It is not too much to say that, except indeed the evil lives of professing Christians, and perhaps the corruptions that have crept into the Churches of Greece and Rome—Christianity has no greater obstacle to encounter in Eastern lands than Islâm. The lands where the latter holds sway are in fact the only portions of the world closed at present to the Gospel, and in which the profession of Christianity means death at the executioner’s hands.

The Muslims profess, in accordance with the teaching of the Qur’ân, to believe in and to reverence all the Prophets. An attentive perusal of what Muḥammad taught with regard to the latter, however, will show how vague and inaccurate their notions regarding them really are. To supplement the very fragmentary information given by the Qur’ân on this subject, various works which profess to give a history of these messengers of God have been drawn up by Muslims. Among these are the ‘Arâishu’t Tîjân in the Arabic language and the Qis̤as̤u’l Anbiyâ in Persian, but Ṯabarî and other historians relate many similar tales, as do many of the most learned commentators on the Qur’ân. The fact is that Muslims know practically nothing whatever about the Prophets except their names, and even about these their information is not always very reliable. Nor can we say that all such absurd legends about the Prophets as those popular among modern Muḥammadans at the present time are the inventions of ignorant men and form no part of the Religion of Islâm. Hardly any of them are more absurd than the legend of King Solomon and Queen Balqîs, and in fact the whole of their ideas about Solomon’s history and magical powers, but these are related in the Qur’ân as undoubtedly true and part of the last and most perfect Revelation of God. To disbelieve in the lapwing that talked with Solomon, or in the Seven Sleepers and their dog, is to be an infidel, for GOD has revealed all these high and holy mysteries! It is easy to understand how opposed men who believe in these things are to the plain, unvarnished teaching of Holy Writ on such subjects, and how gladly they reject the scriptural in favour of the more marvellous accounts contained in their own books.”

The Religion of the Crescent, or Islâm: its strength, its weakness, its origin, its influence being the James long lectures on muḥammadanism for the years 1891–1892 by the Rev. W. st. Clair Tisdall, M. A., Secretary of the C.M.S. Mission, Julfâ, Is̥fahân, Persia

Islam and the Issue of Religion

At the beginning of this article I quoted Adam Deen from the Quilliam Foundation when he said: “what constitutes Kufar or to be a Kafir is someone who believes that Islam is true and conceals it and is hostile towards it.” If we are rational then this statement by Deen cannot have any other meaning than that Islam is true. Or if you prefer, that it is possible to know that Islam is true. What I want to do now by way of completing this rebuttal is express a faith position, but not as a Christian in terms of presenting Christ as He is found in the Scriptures of Old & New Testament, because if Christ is to be comprehended as true, then that means Christ, raised from the dead, and in doing that I am above all else rebuking Adam Deen for his utter implausible and false arguments by which he seeks to humiliate an elderly retired Physicist because he says that Islam is an inherently violent and hostile system, towards the Kafir, and it is that fact which he seeks to educate others on through his work.

That Islam is inherently violent can only be proved or else established in the life of Muhammed. The idea that we can somehow ignore Muhammed, and say that Islam is not shaped by him, is utter nonsense. The confession of faith in Islam is that “there is no god, but God, and that Muhammed is his prophet.” In essence that claim or belief forms the overwhelming direction of everything that comes from Muhammed. Given that no one can doubt that the Shari’ah of Islam comes from Muhammed, else Qur’an was not his recitation at all, then we need to state some plain facts.

Shari’ah

شريعة

Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not. Surah 45:18 Abdullah Yusuf Ali

This is the only instance in Qur’an where the word Shari’ah is used in this form. It is its formal expression, and from this single word we derive both the term, Shari’ah and its religious and political meaning.

Lo! religion with Allah (is) the Surrender (to His Will and Guidance). Those who (formerly) received the Scripture differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning. (Surah 3:19) Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah 5:3) Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Who doth greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against Allah, even as he is being invited to Islam? And Allah guides not those who do wrong. (Surah 61:7) Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Conclusion

Even though there is almost no Muslim who claims that Islam means peace, will answer these points, they are canonically accurate and what they tell us is that Muhammed in his person, through the recitation (Qur’an), is Islam and by force of direction, in his life; thus Islam and the Shari’ah are all that Muhammed did in his prophetic career. After that the only question is what did he say and do. As Qur’an itself states 91 times that Muhammed is the perfect Muslim or that all Muslim must follow his example – then everything he did is perfect according to an Islamic meaning. Qur’an tells us very little about Muhammed in a clearly and easily defined way other than as a basis for establishing Doctrine and a necessary written Jurisprudence – but a’Hadith and Sira tell us everything as a fact of historical and chronological meanings.

What does this mean in reality of Islam, for the Muslim?

Anyone who is Muslim and religious has no choice but to ground their faith in Qur’an. If they do, then there is only one meaning. Islam is Muhammed and Muhammed is Islam. The Shari’ah, and the very term, Islam, hold almost a synonymous meaning as defined by Qur’an. The two terms, Shari’ah and Islam are only used in their manuscript form, or in their formal use in the verses above. After that we have to look to Muhammed, because that is what Islam really is. Moreover, that is precisely what Qur’an tells us 91 times. Muhammed is the perfect Muslim so how can his actions, permissions, and claims not be Islam?

The very distinction between the Hijra and the Hajj are themselves explicitly grounded in Muhammed’s life, because both events are his.

Hijra means the migration of Muhammed to Medina. It means everything that happened from Medina, for nearly ten years. The Hajj, is Muhammed’s journey back to Mecca. It is those ten years in Medina that gives rise to the Lesser Jihad of Islam. It is the Lesser Jihad of Islam that gives rise today, to Islam – as it has done from the moment Muhammed died in 632 CE – He set the meaning of its boundaries and in his own body proved the substance of Islam and the Shari’ah, as its outline and meaning.

Therefore as a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ I publicly rebuke Adam Deen, because he has shown all of us that he is ever willing to assert academic, or supposed classical scholarly claims that of themselves deny the very meaning of Islam. For Islam is the way given to Muhammed, being of itself (according to Qur’an) formerly corrupted by the Jews, overthrown by Christians in their mistaken belief that Christ either died or else was therefore raised from the dead – also that he was a mere man, albeit a man who was covered by the Spirit of God, and being in such an estate gave Israel their opportunity to know Allah (God) as He so determined by His servant Abraham, and following thereafter all the prophets, culminating in Muhammed. So says Islam and therefore though I am a Christian and one who stands against Islam in its spiritual meaning, so declare I. Let all men know for sure that Islam must be seen as Islam is, and not some reckless falsehood given by false men who are pressing Islam as a child presses sweet papers greedily once the sweet is eaten, and have lost sight of what is in the stomach. By which determination are they Kufar against this nation.